Leading Edge Clinic Podcast — Feature
On a recent episode of the Leading Edge Clinic Podcast, RF Safe founder John Coates traces the personal loss that sent him into the world of “non‑native” electromagnetic fields, argues that modern networks expose us in uneven ways, and lays out habits he says can cut everyday exposure while pushing industry toward light‑based alternatives.
Published October 29, 2025
When John Coates says, “I promised my daughter that if I ever learned what took her, I would fight it,” the room stills. On the Leading Edge Clinic Podcast, the founder of RF Safe revisits the loss that launched a life’s work: a firstborn daughter who died in 1995 from a neural tube disorder, and a childhood brush with cancer on a radar‑ringed military base. The grief became a vow—and a long pursuit to understand what he calls the health risks of “non‑native” electromagnetic fields.
In a wide‑ranging interview with host Mark Bofski—a respiratory therapist and health‑freedom activist—Coates argues that the wireless world has changed faster than our understanding of its biological impact. He describes three decades of engineering, advocacy and product design; says everyday “habits” matter more than gadgets; and urges a pivot toward light‑based links indoors. Much of what follows reflects the guest’s views, which remain the subject of debate.
A Loss, a Promise
“Doctors could cite statistics,” Coates recalls of 1995, “but no one could explain why it happened.” Around the same time, he noticed a pattern: his partner worked beside several five‑watt microwave radios; he lived healthfully; yet catastrophe found him. A 1997 study on chicken embryos, he says, linked electromagnetic exposure to neural tube defects—not human infants, but the same defect. “That hit home.”
He sold his businesses and focused on RF Safe. Across three decades he pursued mitigation strategies: early anti‑radiation phone cases, the first shielded belly bands for pregnant women, and antenna work. In the 1990s, he developed an interferometric array—an early take on beamforming—to steer energy away from the user and toward towers. The technique, he says, helped quell the old “motor‑boating” in hearing aids and, with help from the Americans with Disabilities Act, nudged regulators away from an all‑directions (isotropic) rule. “The industry adopted beamforming,” he notes, “but for speed and efficiency, not safety.”
“I promised my daughter that if I ever learned what took her, I would fight it.” — John Coates
Are We More Exposed Than in the 1990s?
“Exponentially worse,” Coates answers—with caveats. Early 1G and 2G phones used longer wavelengths that penetrated deeper, he says. Newer millimeter‑wave bands used in parts of 5G don’t reach as far into tissue, “but 5G is a mix.” Rural coverage can ride on low‑band spectrum around 600 MHz, which penetrates more. And the drive to densify networks with small cells “can offset the ‘shallower’ advantage of high bands by putting antennas closer to homes.”
Habits Over Gadgets
Coates emphasizes behavior first. “Prefer Wi‑Fi calling indoors when you already have Wi‑Fi,” he says. A phone “shouting” to a tower miles away uses more power than one “whispering” to a nearby router. Disable unused radios (Bluetooth, hotspot); avoid stacking transmissions; and use speakerphone or distance tools. Keep phones out of pockets. Place routers away from bedrooms and put them on timers overnight if possible. And, he adds, the basics matter: sleep, nutrition, sunlight and exercise “because many effects are discussed in terms of oxidative stress.”
An Invisible Film
Many describe modern life as a radio‑frequency “soup.” Coates prefers a different metaphor: a techno‑biofilm. Over time, he says, layers of artificial emissions make the environment “more hospitable for machines than for biology.” Against that backdrop he invokes the Earth’s quiet Schumann cavity—the resonant space between surface and ionosphere—as a life‑friendly context that modern signals can disturb.
What Are EMFs? Native vs. Non‑Native
Electromagnetic fields span static fields and visible light to radio waves and microwaves. Coates distinguishes native fields (sunlight; natural resonances) from non‑native, man‑made signals with pulse patterns “life didn’t evolve with.” Mechanistic debates in the literature, he says, often center on ion channels and mitochondria: disturb cellular timing, introduce noise into biological communication and “you can drive oxidative stress.” He points to animal and epidemiological work focusing on heart and nerve tissue as areas of interest.
“All the Websites Say It’s Safe”
Asked why online searches often return assurances, Coates points to funding ties and definitions. In the industry‑funded INTERPHONE project, he notes, “heavy use” was defined as 30 minutes a day—“minimal by today’s standards.” Even there, he says, elevated risks were reported in heavier‑use subsets. With “enormous money behind wireless,” blanket safety claims deserve scrutiny, he argues. Editor’s note: This section reflects the guest’s views.
“Prefer Wi‑Fi calling indoors. Distance and duty cycle matter.” — John Coates
Spanish Flu, COVID and 5G?
Coates rejects the idea that radio‑frequency exposure causes flu or COVID. But he doesn’t dismiss a possible co‑factor role: “It’s reasonable to ask whether EMF exposure could affect susceptibility or severity by increasing oxidative stress or interacting with the immune system.” The patterns of illness, he says, don’t map cleanly onto towers.
The Company We Keep: EMFs and Other Exposures
He thinks in terms of “entropic waste”: inputs that disturb the body’s bioelectric stability—“ingested, absorbed, injected or radiated”—may add to the total burden. “Multiple small stressors can combine.”
Grounding: Helpful or Harmful?
Grounding can backfire indoors, Coates says. In rooms dense with Wi‑Fi and Bluetooth, “grounding your body can make you part of the antenna system,” potentially increasing absorption. “If you want to ground, turn off nearby transmitters first.” Outside, barefoot on moist soil or sand can be beneficial—“just not right under a site.”
Kids, Devices and SAR
Specific absorption rate (SAR), he cautions, is best treated as a compliance metric, not a marker of biological safety. The thermal guideline and adult‑male head model miss what many worry about: non‑thermal effects and children’s different anatomy. “Use distance, limit dwell time and avoid pockets.”
Controllers, Cables and Ears
Even a hard‑wired game console can add exposure if the handheld controller is active at 2.4 GHz or Bluetooth. He worries about “holding radiating devices because of blood flow through the hand,” urging shorter sessions and alternatives. For late‑night listening, he suggests downloading audio, switching to airplane mode, and using air‑tube headsets (a stethoscope‑like air column) rather than fully wired or Bluetooth in‑ear models.
What Helps and What Hurts
Not all anti‑radiation cases help, Coates says. Designs that “sandwich the phone between magnets, metal plates and partial shielding” can detune antennas and force phones to boost power. His own design, he says, avoids detuning and puts a continuous shield between phone and body when needed. But habits still rule: keep shielding between you and the device; use covers as a handle so you don’t wrap your whole hand around a live transmitter; and don’t use any case to justify carrying a phone against the skin.
Cars and the Cabin
Modern vehicles layer Wi‑Fi and Bluetooth inside, and EVs add robust electrical systems. “It’s solvable with engineering,” Coates argues—shielding, and using light‑based links inside the cabin—“but manufacturers have to choose to implement it.”
Toward a Different Wireless: Light
Coates wants a shift from microwaves to photons for local connectivity—Li‑Fi–style optical links using far‑UV or infrared. Citing Alexander Graham Bell’s 1880 experiment with a light‑wave telephone, he believes the pieces now exist to scale optical hand‑offs indoors, cutting RF exposure dramatically. He holds a patent on a “zero‑SAR” concept using far‑UV, and proposes a “Clean Ether Act,” modeled on the Clean Air Act, to push emissions toward spectra he considers more biologically compatible. Editor’s note: This is the guest’s policy and technology vision.
“I don’t buy a grand depopulation scheme. I see ignorance and greed.” — John Coates
Policy and a Call to Action
Is the status quo a plot? “I don’t buy a grand depopulation scheme,” Coates says. “I see ignorance and greed.” Microwaves were easier to deploy and monetize; industry incentives hardened around them. He calls for restoring local voice, rebalancing oversight with medical and environmental expertise and creating incentives or mandates for lower‑impact technologies. His website, he notes, hosts sample letters and tools to contact elected officials. “Your voice—not gadgets—is what ultimately fixes the environment we all share.”
The Road Ahead
Before signing off, Bofski asked for a rapid‑fire list. Coates offered this: distance; disable what you’re not using; prefer Wi‑Fi calling indoors; keep routers away from bedrooms and on timers; keep calls short, text when appropriate; and support general health with sleep, nutrition, light and movement. The message is less about fear than agency: learn the basics, change your habits, and speak up.
Editor’s note: This feature summarizes statements made by guest John Coates during an interview with host Mark Bofski and reflects the guest’s views and interpretations. Readers should consult multiple sources and current guidance when evaluating health and technology claims.
Links: rfsafe.com · Episode on Rumble: “The Silent Signal”